Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tompa79

  • Birthday June 8

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
  • FM Application

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
  • OS Version
    win 10

FileMaker Partner

  • Certification

Tompa79's Achievements


Contributor (5/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. Tried re-login to Full access account - still no documents path.
  2. I think I found the answer - script is run with "Full access privileges", BUT, when I debugged what priveliges was actually used it was a privilege set we use with wpe. That did not have printing or exporting allowed.
  3. I have a server side script that runs on regular interval. One of it's jobs is to create an agreement PDF and upload it to a server. I had this working fine on one solution and have now built it on another solution. The problem is that when I try to get the documents path I get nothing. It took me a while to understand what was wrong, because when I called the script with static parameters from another part of my server side script , there was no problem - I got a value for documents path. From what I can see both calling scripts run with full access priviliges. Can I "mess up" my contact with the file system with another earlier command or something? The blue line in the picture with $path returns empty and lasterror is 0. Save records as PDF can not perform if I set $path to documents folder specifically either. Any ideas? This is on a FM16 Server. (win 2016)
  4. Ok, more info - it was in fact not needed in every iteration only when entering layout. The problem is that it seems like the layout is not ready without the first pause. It's supposed to fetch formulas via a portal - it never entered the portal without pause.
  5. Ok, a slight update with more info. On another computer with fm14 client, it actually works. I can get it to work with 0.1 sec pause in every iteration where the script fetches formula to evaluate. That fetch is a relationship hop through 3 files. Gui->calc->data.
  6. I have a very strange situation here. We have a layout with statistics, that are calculated with a script. If you run the script with a FM13 client or a FM15 client it all works as intended, but when we try FM14 client the result is empty. BUT, if I use Script Debugger on FM14, the result is as intended. Note, the debugger is run with just "play" and no breakpoints - works fine. We have a FMS 14 for the solution. The Server is not a local one - it's located on a remote server hall. Anyone else run into this kind of problem? A note! We have actually had A LOT of problems with FM13 clients connected to FMS14 servers, where the data is not fetched correctly. When client upgrades fo FM14 it ususally works fine. This is the other way around. The solution if upgrade not possible - lots of pauses in critical places. A sick solution, that makes the system slower, but it at least works. Anyone seen this also? One more note! We have a really large solution with multiple tables separated in gui, data and calculation-files.
  7. Wim: Ok, We kind of hoped/assumed that by polling a specific relation, that FM would update that value more or less instantly - obviusly not. That's a very nice suggestion, thanks! Unfortunately, even there, we have random delays. We now think that the size of our database and/or relationship graph in this GUI file, might cause FMS to have trouble updating out to client. I will have to try to have the hidden window open up a separate file containing only the needed table, to perhaps make the work of FMS a little easier. What we also noticed on our hosted solution (WAN) is that clients on a really bad internet connection never get theese delays, only clients on very good connection have the delays (LAN included). - Super strange! The client on bad connection instead gets the more understandable delays on other parts of the solution. Fitch: Not sql at the moment, but it makes no difference with the delays unfortunately (we tried).
  8. Hi We (our company) have just noticed that loops in FM 13 is acting very strange. We setup a simple db-file on our 13 server (v5, windows server), to test a rising suspicion - (polling) loops work bad. We compared loops and on timer script, with and without pause. We let the script run for 15 minutes and did a count on how many iterations each setup managed to run during that time. The script is based on two clients - one that creates record, and the other reads and writes to the created record. The first client creates a new record when it sees that client number two has written to the last record. 1. 0,5 s delay, no loop, onTimer 451 2. no pause, no loop, onTimer 459 3. 0,5 s pause, no loop, onTimer 448 4. 0,5 s pause, no loop, reinvoke 28 5. no pause, loop 341 6. 0,5 s pause, loop 444 The first three is with onTimer. We tried 0.5 seconds of delay in the timer, no delay and also added a pause in the script with no delay on the timer. All three manages approximately the same number of iterations. Number 4 is with a recursive call to itself - it crashed after 28 iterations. Number 5..6 are done with loop. The difference between 5 and 6 is a 0.5 second pause. Notice that WITH a pause, we manage MORE iterations than without. This might already be very well known to many of you, but the reason we did this test is that some of our customers experience very slow response very randomly on a part in our system that is based on a polling loop with a 0.5 second pause. We have wpe script calls that writes to the DB, but the polling/looping clients sometimes does not notice this write, right away as expected. It can take up to 10 seconds in several cases on LAN and over a minute over WAN. We changed the loop to on timer script variant instead and that problem dissappeared. Since then we looked through our solution on other polling loops and noticed that we have random big delays on every one of them when we try to read a value thet already should be there. The random delays exist on every customer we have checked, that runs 13 clients. We are in the process of timing 12 clients also to see if the problem exist there too. Unfortunately we did not get those random big delays on our simple test file. Anyone else experienced this or have input that might shed light on this matter?
  9. Ok, some update on this... Mostly, Insert From URL has worked fine for us, but last week, we had serious slow downs on two separate machines (server 2008), running regular Insert From URL:s - Both of them got very slow when using Insert From URL. These two machines is not connected in any way and run on two separare networks/customers. We have a backup plan for this, whick is Troi URL - this made them go as fast as they should again. We suspect some update to windows/explorer made this happen, since it happened at around the same time on two machines. has anyone else experienced this?
  10. Ok, now I can answer this myself. At least partly. Both of my win7 collegues had windows defender installed, with "real time protection" enabled. Turning that off and it's fast as it should be. This does not explain why I had the problem earlier, since I have AVG anti virus (free) installed and not windows defender. Thanks for reading!
  11. At our office we were very glad of this new "Insert from URL" scriptstep, because we could replace: Webviewer->Pause->Parse result from getlayoutobject... with just Parse "Insert from URL". BUT Now it seems like in some cases, this is VERY much slower for some reason, that we can´t figure out. We have a mixed OS environment, some run mac and some run Win 7 (+ virtual XP) I am on a win7. Here is the story. I first encountered that I hade like more than 10 sec pause (not responding) when calling this script step. I also got a dialog saying something like waiting for http request. This went on for a day. The next day, I had the same problem for like three times, after that lightning fast - can't reproduce the problem. So then I hear that my salesman collegue has trouble demoing some of our system due to very slow performance on just those portions that use Insert from URL. On his Win7 this is slow everytime, and has now been so for quite som time (several days). I asked another win7 collegue to test - also slow - can not get it fast. I also tried in virtual XP mode on my computer and it is also fast. This has never been an issue for my collegues on macs. Simply: On most of our win7 machines, Insert from URL, takes +10 seconds to complete, regardless of address used. (We tried with IP instead of dns name, we tried local files, etc) Has anyone else had this problem or any ideas that might help? Thanks! /Tomas
  12. I ran in to an odd problem the other day. I have created a calculated containerfield containing a png graphic set from another containerfield in wich I keep the original graphics. I have created a quite large pie chart in Photoshop 259x259 pixels to be exact. Saved as a png (save for web and devices). and inserted picture into a containerfield with 20 repetitions. One rep for each 5%. The calculated container fetches graphics from this field. The actual field on the layout is just 20x20 pixels large, but on other layouts I might need a larger one. On XP (my comp) this looks perfect - nice round pie chart symbomls. Then on of my collegues says that they look kind of bad - no round corners at all. What? I say and looks at them at his computer - baad, I also notice that other icons we ALSO use looks quite bad compared to XP - weird. So I ask all of the collegues to check it out - always bad om win7 - always good on XP and MacOS. I then switched to gif-format instead - nah, still bad on win7 - but another bad - instead of chunky quality, the chunky bits became just black pixels - my nice round pie chart turned to an odd star or something... Third attempt - downsized the original picture in Photoshop to 20x20 and disabled fm:s resize of the graphics - Ok, this worked fine - pie chart looks ok even on Win7. My questions/thoughts are - How can win7 render the graphic so differently? I know that it's probably best practive to always do downsampling in an external graphics program, but I had never really encountered a problem NOT doing it until now? What are your practices/experiences on the matter? /Tomas
  13. Thanks! Not much to discuss then. No external backup of the filemaker catalogue is allowed.
  14. Thanks for your reply! I should make this more clear I think - they don't actually copy on file level, but on block level. Does it matter?
  15. Hi One of our customer is doing a backup of the LUN where our Filemaker server is present. Is this ok or might this damage the live files? I have next to none knowledge about LUN-drives and SAN storage. Normally we have a strict policy of NO BACKUPS on live files - but this technician says it's ok - I have no idea? Anybody who knows? (BTV - Specs win2003, FMS9, 2gb ram, 50GB HD, Xeon 2.5GHz) Thanks!
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.